Sat, Jun 7, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 16, Issue 50 (2023)
JMED 2023, 16(50): 7-12 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: NIL
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kala J S, Tyagi A, Bhukya S, Jamwal V D S, Tandon A. Effect on exam performance through massive open online courses versus face-to-face classrooms among Indian medical students: An analytic study. JMED 2023; 16 (50) :7-12
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1638-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1638-en.html
1- Department of Anatomy, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune Maharashtra
2- Department of Physiology Armed Forces Medical College, Pune Maharashtra
3- Department of Anatomy, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. ,subhashbhukya@gmail.com
2- Department of Physiology Armed Forces Medical College, Pune Maharashtra
3- Department of Anatomy, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune. ,
Abstract: (1711 Views)
Background & Objective: With the affluence of use and better accessibility, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become essential in imparting education in the ongoing COVID scenario. The study aims to compare the effect of MOOCs versus face-to-face classrooms on medical students’ learning outcomes in anatomy exams at the end of the first year of a medical course.
Materials & Methods: The cross-sectional study included 300 first-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students in two batches (150 each). The first group underwent a one-year MOOCs group, and the second group experienced a one-year face-to-face classroom. The training program and study materials for the anatomy curriculum were kept the same for both groups by the standard National Medical Council curriculum of India. The assessment was standardized and based on summative University examinations.
Results: The mean score in the university theoretical exam was significantly higher in the MOOCs group as compared to the classroom learning group (66.68 ± 6.61 vs 63.52 ± 7.97, P-value: 0.001), whereas the mean scores in the practical examination were significantly higher in classroom learning group as compared to MOOCs group (78.71 ± 6.28 vs. 74.19 ± 7.45, P-value: 0.001). The MOOCs group shows better learning in the cognitive domain.
Conclusion: The classroom learning groups performed better in the practical examination, which assesses the psychomotor and affective domain of learning. Hence, a blended T/L method involving both classroom and online methods is recommended as India’s preferred approach to imparting medical education.
Materials & Methods: The cross-sectional study included 300 first-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students in two batches (150 each). The first group underwent a one-year MOOCs group, and the second group experienced a one-year face-to-face classroom. The training program and study materials for the anatomy curriculum were kept the same for both groups by the standard National Medical Council curriculum of India. The assessment was standardized and based on summative University examinations.
Results: The mean score in the university theoretical exam was significantly higher in the MOOCs group as compared to the classroom learning group (66.68 ± 6.61 vs 63.52 ± 7.97, P-value: 0.001), whereas the mean scores in the practical examination were significantly higher in classroom learning group as compared to MOOCs group (78.71 ± 6.28 vs. 74.19 ± 7.45, P-value: 0.001). The MOOCs group shows better learning in the cognitive domain.
Conclusion: The classroom learning groups performed better in the practical examination, which assesses the psychomotor and affective domain of learning. Hence, a blended T/L method involving both classroom and online methods is recommended as India’s preferred approach to imparting medical education.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2022/06/24 | Accepted: 2023/04/13 | Published: 2023/05/17
Received: 2022/06/24 | Accepted: 2023/04/13 | Published: 2023/05/17
References
1. Safadi, R. , Abushaikha, L. Toward a Holistic Approach in Medical Education. Medical education for the 21st century. In Tech Open. 2022; [DOI]
2. Masic I. Blended learning as new method of medical education. Acta Informatica Medica. 2008;16(2):103-17. [DOI]
3. Johnson AK, Scott CS. Relationship between early clinical exposure and first-year students' attitudes toward medical education. Academic Medicine: Journal of The Association of American Medical Colleges. 1998;73(4):430-432. [DOI]
4. Chaturvedi K, Vishwakarma DK, Singh N et al. COVID-19 and its impact on education, social life and mental health of students: A Survey. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;121. [DOI]
5. Saiyad S., Virk A., Mahajan R., Singh T et al. Online teaching in medical training: Establishing good online teaching practices from cumulative experience. International Journal Of Applied And Basic Medical Research. 2020;10(3):149-55. [DOI]
6. Armstrong P. Bloom’s taxonomy.Vanderbilt University Center For Teaching. 2016. [DOI]
7. Hall T. Differentiated Instruction. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center On Accessing The General Curriculum. Washington Dc: Office Of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department Of Education. 2002. [DOI]
8. Johnson DW. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Ashe-Eric Higher Education. 1991.
9. RobertsTS. The use of multiple-choice tests for formative and summative assessment. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference On Computing Education. 2006; 52:175-80. [DOI]
10. Hoffmann MH. Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning to make engineering courses comparable. 19th Eaeeie Annual Conference. 2008;205-9. [DOI]
11. Harrow AJ. A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. Longman Publishing Group; 1972. [DOI]
12. Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB et al. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals; Handbook Ii: Affective Domain. David Mckay Company, Incorporated; 1956. [DOI]
13. Elfaki NK, Abdulraheem I, Abdulrahim R et al. Impact of E-learning vs Traditional Learning on Student’s Performance and Attitude. International Medical Journal. 2019;24(03):225-33.
14. Subramanian A, Timberlake M, Mittakanti H, Lara M, Brandt ML et al. NovBL educational approach for medical students: improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. Journal Of Surgical Education. 2012;69(4):449-52. [DOI]
15. 1Mitchell EA, Ryan A, Carson O, McCann S et al. An exploratory study of web‐enhanced learning in undergraduate nurse education. Journal Of Clinical Nursing. 2007;16(12):2287-96. [DOI]
16. Soltanimehr E, Bahrampour E, Imani MM, Rahimi F, Almasi B, Moattari M et al. Effect of virtual versus traditional education on theoretical knowledge and reporting skills of dental students in radiographic interpretation of bony lesions of the jaw. BMC Medical Education. 2019;19(1):1-7. [DOI]
17. Cooper D, Higgins S. The effectiveness of online instructional videos in the acquisition and demonstration of cognitive, affective and psychomotor rehabilitation skills. British Journal Of Educational Technology. 2015;46(4):768-79. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
